SUSPECTED IS ATTACK KILLS DOZENS AT ISTANBUL’S AIRPORT

BY ZEYNEP BILGINSOY, SUZAN FRASER AND DOMINIQUE SOGUEL

Suspected Islamic State group extremists have hit the international terminal of Istanbul’s Ataturk airport, killing dozens of people and wounding many others, Turkish officials said Tuesday.

Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag said 31 people were killed in the attack while another senior government official told The Associated Press it could climb much higher.

The senior official at first said close to 50 people had already died, but later said that the figure was expected to rise to close to 50.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in line with government protocol, said as many as four militants may have been involved in the attack.

Turkey’s NTV television earlier quoted Istanbul Governor Vasip Sahin as saying some 60 people were wounded.

Roads around the airport were sealed off for regular traffic after the attack and several ambulances could be seen driving back and forth. Hundreds of passengers were flooding out of the airport and others were sitting on the grass, their bodies lit by the flashing lights of the emergency vehicles.

Twelve-year-old Hevin Zini had just arrived from Dusseldorf with her family and was in tears from the shock.

She told The Associated Press that there was blood on the ground and everything was blown up to bits.

South African Judy Favish, who spent two days in Istanbul as a layover on her way home from Dublin, had just checked in when she heard an explosion followed by gunfire and a loud bang.

She says she hid under the counter for some time.

Favish says passengers were ushered to a cafeteria at the basement level where they were kept for more than an hour before being allowed outside.

Another Turkish official said attackers detonated explosives at the entrance of the international terminal after police fired at them.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in line with government protocol, said the attackers blew themselves up before entering the x-ray security check at the airport entrance.

Turkish airports have security checks at both the entrance of terminal buildings and then later before entry to departure gates.

Two South African tourists, Paul and Susie Roos from Cape Town, were at the airport and due to fly home at the time of the explosions and were shaken by what they witnessed.

“We came up from the arrivals to the departures, up the escalator when we heard these shots going off,” Paul Roos said. “There was this guy going roaming around, he was dressed in black and he had a hand gun.”

The private DHA news agency said the wounded, among them police officers, were being transferred to Bakirkoy State Hospital.

Turkey has suffered several bombings in recent months linked to Kurdish or Islamic State group militants.

The bombings include two in Istanbul targeting tourists – which the authorities have blamed on the Islamic State group.

The attacks have increased in scale and frequency, scaring off tourists and hurting the economy, which relies heavily on tourism revenues.

Istanbul’s Ataturk Airport was the 11th busiest airport in the world last year, with 61.8 million passengers, according to Airports Council International. It is also one of the fastest-growing airports in the world, seeing 9.2 percent more passengers last year than in 2014.

The largest carrier at the airport is Turkish Airlines, which operates a major hub there. Low-cost Turkish carrier Onur Air is the second-largest airline there.

—

Soguel reported from Sanliurfa, Turkey. Bram Janssen in Istanbul and Scott Mayerowitz in New York also contributed to this report.

Suicide bombers have killed at least 10 and wounded 40 at Istanbul’s Ataturk airport after blowing themselves up as police opened fire, according to Turkish officials.

It is understood that a ‘terrorist’ first opened fire with a Kalashnikov, before blowing himself up.

It is not yet clear how many attackers were involved as witnesses reported twin blasts that struck at the International Arrivals Terminal at 7.50pm GMT – 9.50pm local time.

The first photographs to emerge from the airport show a scene of devastation, with debris and what appear to be ceiling tiles scattered over the taxi ranks outside the airport.

A man carries a wounded boy away from the devastated airport tonight after the twin explosions, in what is believed to have been a suicide attack

Ceiling tiles are scattered over the ground outside the international arrivals terminal, which was hit by what is believed to have been a suicide blast tonight

Ambulances rush to the airport after the blasts this evening, to help the at least 40 wounded in the blast

An AK-47 can be seen lying abandoned on the floor, after two suicide bombers set of blasts at the airport as police opened fire

Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag confirmed 10 people were killed in the attack at the international arrival terminal.

He said: ‘A terrorist at the international terminal entrance first opened fire with a Kalashnikov and then blew himself up.’

It is believed the suspects had been trying to pass through the x-ray machines when they were stopped by security officials.

They then opened fire and became locked in a shootout with security and police officers.

Some of the wounded are said to be police officers involved in the melee.

Turkish airports have security checks at both at the entrance of terminal buildings and then later before entry to departure gates.

The private DHA news agency said the wounded were being transferred to Bakirkoy State Hospital.

One photograph from the scene shows an AK-47 lying abandoned on the floor of the airport following the attack.

Police officers and ambulance crews outside the international arrivals terminal, which was struck in what officials say was a terror attack

Ambulance crews ferry the wounded away from the terminal. The wounded are believed to include a number of police officers and security personnel

The first images to emerge from the scene show debris, including what appear to be ceiling tiles, scattered over taxis

An abandoned office at Turkey’s largest airport, the Ataturk airport in Istanbul, where reports say explosions and gunfire have broken out. A window pane to the right of the image appears to have been shattered

Ambulance crews and emergency services have descended on the stricken airport, as the number of wounded is expected to increase.

A witness told broadcaster CNN Turk that gunfire was heard from the direction of the car park at the airport, which is the largest in Turkey.

Four armed men were reportedly seen running away from the terminal building after the explosions, according to Turkey’s NTV channel.

All flight operation from the airport has been suspended.

Initial reports put the number of wounded at around 40 people. Taxis are ferrying the wounded away from the airport, which officials suspect was hit by a suicide bomber

A witness told broadcaster CNN Turk that gunfire was heard from the direction of the car park at the airport, which is the largest in Turkey. Pictured, emergency services at the airport

Paramedics at the scene help the 40 wounded at the airport, with at least 10 people reported to have died

A photograph of the entrance to the international airport shows scattered debris as onlookers gather around to help the wounded – initially estimated to number around 40 people

Crowds gather outside the airport after tonight’s explosions, as emergency crews rush to help the wounded

Holidaymakers drag their suitcases outside the airport, as all flights were grounded following the attack

Two explosions and gunfire have been heard at Istanbul’s Ataturk airport (pictured), according to reports in Turkish media

A file image of the Ataturk International Airport in Istanbul, which is the country’s largest airport. Explosions and gunfire have hit the airport, although it is not yet clear whether it was a terror attack or suicide blast, according to officials

A Turkish official confirmed to Reuters that two explosions had hit the airport.

Turkey has suffered several bombings in recent months linked to Kurdish or ISIS militants.

The bombings included two in Istanbul targeting tourists – which the authorities have blamed on the Islamic State group.

The attacks have increased in scale and frequency, scaring off tourists and hurting the economy, which relies heavily on tourism revenues.

The U.S. State Department published a travel warning in March, encouraging citizens to ‘exercise heightened vigilance and caution when visiting public access areas, especially those heavily frequented by tourists’.

Story 2: The Big Lies And Cover-up About A State Department Foreign Policy And CIA Covert Action Failures in Libya and Benghazi Elects Barack Obama and Destroys Hillary Clinton Credibility And Reveals Total Incompetence and Blind Ambition of Obama and Clinton — Missing In Action President Obama and Secretary of Defense Not In Situation Room, No Followup and Leading From Behind — Arrogance of Power and The Decline and Fall Of American Empire By The Two Party Tyranny of The Democratic and Republican Parties — Throw The Political Elitist Establishment Out of Office — Both Political Parties Authorized A Undeclared War In Libya Contrary To United States Constitution — An Imperial President and Congress — American People Will Overthrow These Tyrants Come Election Day — Story 2: Breaking News! Terrorist Attack At Turkish Ataturk airport in Istanbul — 10 Dead+ and 40 Wounded –Videos

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) explains what happened in Benghazi

In a press conference on June 28, 2016, Rep. Jim Jordan, OH-04, explains his view of what happened leading up to, during and after the night of September 11, 2012 when four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi, Libya from a terrorist attack. Follow the link to read Rep. Jordan’s joint report with Rep. Mike Pompeo about the events: http://jordan.house.gov/uploadedfiles…

President Ignoring Constitution, War Powers Act in Libya

Ron Paul- Obama commits unconstitutional act of WAR !!

The official report of the House Select Committee on Benghazi offered proof of what America already knew about the attack – but, more importantly, added shocking details about the lack of leadership during that attack which led to the death of two of the four victims. It explains that the Obama Administration was already working on a cover-up during the attack – when Ambassador Stevens was missing and not yet reported dead and at least two of the four victims were still on the roof of the compound (Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods) and fighting for their lives.

The official 800 page committee report issued Tuesday came just a few hours after a politically-motivated report released by the Democrats, which referred to Donald Trump more times than two of the Benghazi victims.

While the report does find fault with Clinton and the State Department, it does not focus on her, just as committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) promised. The report is a chronology of the events leading up to the attack, the attack itself and the aftermath. Additionally, the committee interviewed more than 80 people and reviewed thousands of pages of new documents not available to any prior investigation.

Along with finding fault with State Department staff and Hillary Clinton’s actions, the report criticizes the CIA, saying it “missed the looming threat despite warnings and wrote faulty intelligence reports after the attack. The findings will also indicate that the Defense Department did not meet its response times to deploy military assets to Benghazi and follow up to ensure Americans were rescued in a timely fashion.”

It is not surprising that the report says the story the Administration told America, that terrorist attack in Benghazi was incited by a Mohammed video on YouTube, was a fabrication invented by the Obama Administration political team and had nothing to do with the ongoing live reports the state department was getting from Benghazi during the attack.

One U.S. agent at the American outpost in Benghazi, whose name was withheld for security reasons, said that, just before the attack, they heard “some kind of chanting.”

Then that sound was immediately followed by “explosions” and “gunfire, then roughly 70 people rushing into the compound with an assortment of “AK-47s, grenades, RPG’s … a couple of different assault rifles,” the agent said.

In addition, a senior watch officer at the State Department’s diplomatic security command described the Sept. 11, 2012, strikes as “a full on attack against our compound.”

When asked whether he saw or heard a protest prior to the attacks, the officer replied, “zip, nothing, nada.”

“The firsthand accounts made their way to the office of the Secretary through multiple channels quickly …,” the report concluded.”

Not one of the reports provided from the people on the ground during the attack mentioned a protest or a video, yet as the attack was happening, senior members of the administration were meeting to create that story, even as they knew that Ambassador Stevens was missing (but, before anyone knew he had died) and CIA operatives Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were standing on the roof of the Benghazi Compound fighting for their lives.

That White House meeting that was convened roughly three hours into the attack, and included deputies to senior Cabinet members and Clinton, focused on a “Terrorist Event Notification” – not the video:

Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli. There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks.

The only statement from the Obama administration that evening came from Hillary Clinton and included this line: “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

But, as we learned during her testimony to the committee, Ms. Clinton was saying something else in private:

In an email provided to the Select Committee, Clinton told daughter Chelsea, “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like [sic] group.”

Clinton also told Egypt’s prime minister the following day: “We know that the attacks in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.”

The report says that, despite “Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began.”

The reason for the delay was a concern about the rescuers’ wardrobe:

So we were told multiple times to change what we were wearing, to change from cammies into civilian attire, civilian attire into cammies, cammies into civilian attire.

There was also some talk of whether or not we could carry our personal weapons. I was basically holding hard and fast to the point where we were carrying our personal weapons. Like, we’ve got a very violent thing going on the ground where we’re going, so we’re going to be carrying something that can protect ourselves.

In fact, the FAST Platoon commander testified that during the course of three hours, he and his Marines changed in and out of their uniforms four times.[General Carter] Ham [commander of U.S. Africa Command] was not aware the FAST Platoon had been directed to change out of their uniforms until after the fact. When asked whether he had any explanation for why it took so long for the FAST Platoon to arrive in Tripoli, he replied, “I do not.”

It was the State Department which originally suggested the wardrobe change. According to the notes from the 7:30PM White House meeting:

Apparently Pat K[ennedy] expressed concern on the [White House meeting] about Libyan reaction if uniformed US forces arrived in country in military aircraft; there was discussion of the option of entering in plainclothes, which JCS explained was possible but noted that the risks to the forces to remaining in plainclothes increased as they transited from point of entry to the relevant location of action.

A email framed the issue as follows:

The U.S. military has begun notifying special units of likely deployment, with ultimate disposition pending State coordination with the Libyan government and final approval by the White House. State remains concerned that any U.S. military intervention be fully coordinated with the Libyan Government and convey Libyan concerns that [sic] about U.S. military presence, to include concerns that wheeled military vehicles should not be used and U.S. Military Forces should consider deploying in civilian attire.

Thus, Panetta was being honest when he said there was no stand-down order. The rescue was delayed because of a concern about the appropriate wardrobe initiated by the State Department.

According to Susan Rice, who went on five Sunday news programs days after the attack blaming the video, her statements blaming the video “were based on the best available information, but nobody from the intelligence community such as the CIA director or the Director of National Intelligence briefed Rice. That was done by the political appointees.”

So, it seems that, even though she was playing the role of the administration’s spokesperson on the Sunday shows, it was deemed that Rice should get her story from the spin-masters.

In fact, a Sept. 14, 2012 memo from Rhodes included the subject line: “RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.”

The email was sent to a dozen members of the administration’s inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as then-Press Secretary Jay Carney, who also pushed the video narrative in the days after the attacks.

In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere, including one day earlier in Cairo.

The Rhodes email, which was a catalyst for the Select Committee, was first obtained by Judicial Watch and reported here. Per the report, Rhodes was also the official who signed off on Clinton’s statement the night of the attack linking the video to Benghazi.

Among the goals laid out for Rice in the email were “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video and not a broader failure of policy” and “to reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.” Both this subterfuge and the attack occurred less than two months before the 2012 presidential election.

The CIA’s September 13, 2012, intelligence assessment was rife with errors. On the first page, there is a single mention of “the early stages of the protest” buried in one of the bullet points. The article cited to support the mention of a protest in this instance was actually from September 4. In other words, the analysts used an article from a full week before the attacks to support the premise that a protest had occurred just prior to the attack on September 11

A headline on the following page of the CIA’s September 13 intelligence assessment stated “Extremists Capitalized on Benghazi Protests,” but nothing in the actual text box supports that title. As it turns out, the title of the text box was supposed to be “Extremists Capitalized on Cairo Protests.” That small but vital difference—from Cairo to Benghazi—had major implications in how people in the administration were able to message the attacks

On top of the full committee report, two of the panel’s Republican members, Reps. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and Jim Jordan (R-OH) released their own views, stating that the committee should have been harsher on Ms. Clinton, saying that the committee needed an answer for why she was so insistent on keeping people in Libya’s troubled second city — creating a target for the terrorists.

“There was a very good chance that everyone was going to die,” one diplomatic security agent told the committee, recalling the troublesome security situation in the run-up to the attack.

(…) Mrs. Clinton personally joined a high-level video meeting the night of the attack and that gathering spent an extraordinary amount of time focused on the video, the lawmakers said. Of 11 action items emerging from that meeting, five of them related to the video, according to an email recounting the meeting, which the committee unearthed.

“What has also emerged is a picture of the State Department eating up valuable time by insisting that certain elements of the U.S. military respond to Libya in civilian clothes and that it not use vehicles with United States markings,” the lawmakers said. “We will never know exactly how long these conditions delayed the military response but that they were even a part of the discussion is troubling.”

This may not be the final version of the report, since the committee has scheduled a meeting markup to discuss and vote on the proposed report on July 8, 2016. According to the report issued Tuesday, all members of the committee will have the opportunity to offer changes in a manner consistent with the rules of the House at that time.

BENGHAZI REPORT: 10 THINGS THAT HAPPENED THE NIGHT OF

FILE – In this Oct. 22, 2015 file photo, Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington before the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Clinton never personally denied any requests from diplomats for additional security at the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, according to Democrats on a select House panel who absolved the former secretary of state and the U.S. military of wrongdoing in the deadly Sept. 11, 2012 attacks. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)

RELATED

MORE NEWS HEADLINES

By Debbie Lord

Cox Media Group National Content Desk

With all the intelligence available at the time,Hillary Clinton should have realized the risks Ambassador Christopher Stevens and others faced from extremist groups in Benghazi, Libya, according to a long-awaited U.S. House committee reporton the attack that left Stevens and three others dead in 2012.

The report from the “Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, Libya,” was released Tuesday. In addition to taking Clinton to task for her actions, the findings also say the Obama administration failed in nearly every way it could to protect American diplomats in Benghazi that night.

The report points out failures in military response, and slams Clinton, who was secretary of State at the time, and the State Department for acting in a “shameful” manner in failing to turn over emails from her private email server as the attack was being investigated. The report said because it did not have the emails, it was “impossible” to know everything about the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that left four Americans – Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, dead.

Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]

With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]

The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]

A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154]

Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli. There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks. [pg. 28]

The morning after the attacks, the National Security Council’s Deputy Spokesperson sent an email to nearly two dozen people from the White House, Defense Department, State Department, and intelligence community, stating: “Both the President and Secretary Clinton released statements this morning. … Please refer to those for any comments for the time being. To ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15 ET today.” [pg. 39]

Minutes before the President delivered his speech in the Rose Garden, Jake Sullivan wrote in an email to Ben Rhodes and others: “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.’” [pg. 44]

According to Susan Rice, both Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe prepared her for her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows following the attacks. Nobody from the FBI, Department of Defense, or CIA participated in her prep call. While Rhodes testified Plouffe would “normally” appear on the Sunday show prep calls, Rice testified she did not recall Plouffe being on prior calls and did not understand why he was on the call in this instance. [pg.98]

On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice stated the FBI had “already begun looking at all sorts of evidence” and “FBI has a lead in this investigation.” But on Monday, the Deputy Director, Office of Maghreb Affairs sent an email stating: “McDonough apparently told the SVTS [Secure Video Teleconference] group today that everyone was required to ‘shut their pieholes’ about the Benghazi attack in light of the FBI investigation, due to start tomorrow.” [pg. 135]

Susan Rice’s comments on the Sunday talk shows were met with shock and disbelief by State Department employees in Washington. The Senior Libya Desk Officer, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, wrote: “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.” The Deputy Director, Office of Press and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, responded: “Off the reservation on five networks!” The Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, Bureau of Near East Affairs, State Department, wrote: “WH [White House] very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.” [pg. 132]

House Benghazi report faults military response, not Clinton, for deaths
Panel chair Trey Gowdy concludes $7m investigation with 800-page report that accuses US of being slow to respond after 2012 attack was already under way

Benghazi report blames military for slow response after attacks
Lauren Gambino in New York and David Smith in Washington
Tuesday 28 June 2016 10.49 EDT Last modified on Tuesday 28 June 2016 15.14 EDT
Share on LinkedIn Share on Google+
Shares
1,193
Save for later
House Republicans investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, have found no new evidence to conclude that Hillary Clinton, secretary of state at the time, was culpable in the deaths of four Americans, according to the committee’s final report released on Tuesday.

The 800-page document released by the Republicans on the House select committee on Benghazi brought to a close a fiercely partisan, two-year, $7m investigation that included interviews with more than 80 witnesses. The report reveals new details about the night of the attack and concludes that the Obama administration failed to recognize the possibility of it happening.

Ambassador Christopher Stevens, his state department colleague Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed when Islamist militants stormed the US consulate in Benghazi on 11 September 2012. Controversy has raged ever since over the chain of events and how much support the men had from Washington.

The White House noted tersely that this was the eighth congressional committee to investigate the attacks and went on longer than the 9/11 commission and the committees designated to look at Pearl Harbor, the assassination of President John F Kennedy, the Iran-Contra affair and Watergate. It accused Republicans of pursuing “wild conspiracy theories”.

Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, a Republican from South Carolina, denied that presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Clinton was the target. “When the select committee was formed, I promised to conduct this investigation in a manner worthy of the American people’s respect, and worthy of the memory of those who died,” he said.

“That is exactly what my colleagues and I have done. Now, I simply ask the American people to read this report for themselves, look at the evidence we have collected, and reach their own conclusions.”

But a split emerged among Republicans on the committee. Two members, Jim Jordan and Mike Pompeo, issued a 48-page supplementary report more forthright in its criticism. It says: “What we did find was a tragic failure of leadership – in the run-up to the attack and the night of – and an administration that, so blinded by politics and its desire to win an election, disregarded a basic duty of government: tell the people the truth. And for those reasons Benghazi is, and always will be, an American tragedy.”

Jordan, from Ohio, and Pompeo, from Kansas, were equally blunt in their condemnation of Clinton in particular. “Secretary Clinton and the administration told one story privately – that Benghazi was a terrorist attack – and told another story publicly – blaming a video-inspired protest,” they wrote.

Pressed on whether he believed that Clinton lied, Gowdy declined to give a direct answer, telling journalists to read the report. “You’re going to have to decide that for yourself,” he said.
Clinton on Benghazi report: ‘It’s pretty clear it’s time to move on’
The committee’s Democrats, who have long derided the investigation as politically motivated, on Monday released their own report on the committee’s findings.

Advertisement

“Although the select committee obtained additional details that provide context and granularity, these details do not fundamentally alter the previous conclusions,” the Democrats’ report said.

Donald Trump has used the incident to discredit Clinton’s time at the helm of the state department. In a speech last week, he said Clinton “spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched. Among the victims was our late ambassador Chris Stevens”.

And on Tuesday Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, weighed in: “The new information in the majority’s report on the Benghazi terrorist attack makes clear that Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration engaged in a politically motivated cover-up weeks before the 2012 presidential election.

“Hillary Clinton knew the night of the attack it had nothing to do with an internet video, and yet she shamefully peddled this false narrative to the American public and to the victims’ families. This in itself is a disqualifying act of deception.”

Clinton, campaigning in Denver, said: “I understand that after more than two years and $7m spent by the Benghazi committee under taxpayer funds, it had to today report that it had found nothing – nothing – to contradict the conclusions that the independent accountability board, or the conclusions of the prior multiple earlier investigations carried out on a bipartisan basis in the Congress.”

Advertisement

She added: “So while this unfortunately took on a partisan tinge, I want us to stay focused on what I’ve always wanted us to stay focused on, and that is the important work of diplomacy and development.”

The Democratic nominee added: “That’s especially true in dangerous places. We cannot withdraw or retreat from the world. America needs a presence for a lot of reasons, and the best way to honor the commitment and sacrifice of those we’ve lost is to redouble our efforts to provide resources and support that our diplomats and development groups deserve. So, I’ll leave it to others to characterize this report, but I think it’s pretty clear that it’s time to move on.”

In Washington, Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, condemned the report claiming it dealt in “politically motivated fantasies” and accused Republicans of “cynically trying to capitalise on the deaths of four innocent Americans who were killed overseas”.

Asked if he believed this finally drew a line under the Benghazi issue, Earnest replied: “I thought it was over after the first five investigations. This was the eighth.”

He called on the Republican National Committee to correctly report the in-kind contributions for the $7m investigation in its next filing with the Federal Election Commission.

In October, Clinton endured 11 hours of questioning by the House select committee, and was roundly commended for her performance during the marathon hearing while the chairman was criticized for failing to produce any new information about the 2012 attack.

The hearing was a turning point for Clinton’s campaign. On the trail, Democrats still refer to her grace-under-fire performance as a testament to her endurance and ability to withstand and overcome partisan attacks.

The report faults the military for its slow response sending resources to the Libyan city during the deadly 2012 attacks on a US outpost, despite clear orders from Barack Obama and the then US defense secretary Leon Panetta.

Gowdy said “nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost eight hours after the attacks began”.

He said the Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA annex in Benghazi were not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or state department had developed a relationship with during the previous 18 months.

Gowdy said on Tuesday that the report documents that the US was slow to send help to the Americans in Benghazi “because of an obsession with hurting the Libyans’ feelings”.

He said the report was not aimed at Clinton, but portrays “series of heroic acts” by Americans under attack “and what we can do to prevent” other assaults.

The Democrats’ report released on Monday saying that while the state department’s security measures in Benghazi the night of 11 September 2012 were “woefully inadequate”, Clinton never personally turned down a request for additional security. Democrats said the military could not have done anything differently that night to save the lives of the Americans.

On Tuesday, the panel’s Democrats denounced the Republicans’ report as “a conspiracy theory on steroids – bringing back long-debunked allegations with no credible evidence whatsoever”.

The state department also issued a statement on Tuesday, saying that the “essential facts” of the attacks “have been known for some time”, and have been the subject of numerous reviews, including one by an independent review board.

Declare War

It is well accepted that the conduct of war is an “executive Power,” vested by Article II in the President, who also serves as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Both at the time of the Framing of the Constitution and afterward, there has been agreement that the President has the power to repel invasions. Intimately familiar with the treatises on international law, the Framers were undoubtedly aware of the general rule that, as Hugo Grotius had put it, “By the law of nature, no declaration is required when one is repelling an invasion.” The Law of War and Peace (1646). The debate, instead, has centered on the location of the power to initiate war.

Advocates of congressional power contend that the President cannot initiate hostilities because the Constitution expressly vests the power to “declare War” in Congress. In support of that view, they note that, according to his notes from the Constitutional Convention, James Madison successfully advocated that Congress be given the power, not to “make” war but to “declare” war, to “leav[e] to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.” In 1862, the Supreme Court opined that the President “has no power to initiate or declare a war,” but if there were an invasion, “the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force…without waiting for any special legislative authority.” Prize Cases (1863).

On the other hand, the Constitution distinguishes between “declaring” war and “engaging in” (see Article I, Section 10, Clause 3) or “levying” war (see Article III, Section 3, Clause 1). Moreover, there is no express requirement of legislative consent in other sections of the Constitution or in earlier documents before the President may commence hostilities.

Accordingly, much of the debate over the power to initiate hostilities focuses on understanding the meaning of the words, “declare War.” Supporters of presidential authority contend that the Founders were well aware of the long British practice of undeclared wars. They assert that the Constitution likewise does not require formal war declarations for the President to authorize hostilities as a matter of domestic constitutional power.

Under this view, Congress’s power to declare war was established for an altogether different purpose. Declarations of war alter legal relationships between subjects of warring nations and trigger certain rights, privileges, and protections under the laws of war. According to Grotius, declarations gave notice of the legal grounds for the war and the opportunity for enemy nations to make amends and thereby avoid the scourge of war. It served notice on the enemy’s allies that they would be regarded as cobelligerents and their shipping subject to capture. Under a declaration of war, one’s own navy and privateers could not be treated as pirates by the enemy, but on the other hand one’s own citizens were subject to prosecution if they dealt with the enemy.

Furthermore, under previous practice, declarations of war triggered other legal actions, such as the internment or expulsion of enemy aliens, the breaking of diplomatic relations, and the confiscation of the enemy’s property. In short, the power to declare war was designed as a power to affect legal rights and duties in times of hostilities. It is not a check on executive power to engage in such hostilities in the first place.

Congressional power supporters respond that the Declaration of War Clause must be given a broader interpretation, particularly in light of contemporaneous statements by prominent Founding era figures. They contend that the clause was intended to include the power not only to issue formal declarations, but also to confer authority to decide upon any engagement of hostilities, whether declared or otherwise. Therefore, they argue, the Declaration of War Clause must be construed to deprive the President of power to initiate hostilities absent congressional consent.

There have been only five congressionally declared wars in the history of the United States. Of those, only the first, the War of 1812, constituted an affirmative declaration of war. The remaining four, the Mexican-American War of 1846, the Spanish-American War of 1898, World War I, and World War II, merely declared the prior existence of a state of war. Notably, those declarations were accompanied by express authorizations of use of force, suggesting a distinction between declarations of war and authorizations of force.

Numerous other hostilities have been specifically authorized by Congress through instruments other than formal declarations. For example, offensive actions taken by the United States during its first real “war”—against Tripoli in 1802—were statutorily authorized but not accompanied by a formal declaration. Congress also expressly authorized the use of force in the Quasi War with France in 1798, against Iraq in 1991 and 2002, and against the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001, attacks, all without issuing a formal declaration of war.

Early in American history, in an era of limited peacetime budgets for military resources, Presidents tended to defer to Congress. In modern times, the debate over the allocation of war powers between Congress and the President is dramatically affected by the institution of a large United States peacetime military force following World War II. Starting with the Korean War, modern Presidents have been more aggressive in asserting unilateral authority to engage in war without declaration or other congressional authorization. In 1973, Congress attempted to affirm its control over war through passage, over President Richard M. Nixon’s veto, of the War Powers Resolution. Presidents have generally refused to recognize the constitutional operation of the War Powers Resolution, although Presidents have often taken actions “consistent” with the War Powers Resolution to avoid unnecessary conflict with Congress.

The Supreme Court has never intervened to stop a war that a President has started without congressional authorization. Some federal courts of appeals have held that at least some level of congressional authorization is constitutionally required before the President may conduct military hostilities. See, e.g., Orlando v. Laird (1971). Other courts have found the issue nonjusticiable. See, e.g., Mitchell v. Laird (1973).

Whatever the domestic constitutional implications for presidential power to initiate hostilities, the Declaration of War Clause gives to Congress certain powers under international and domestic statutory law. Nonetheless, with the growth of international law, the significance of formal declarations has declined. For example, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which guarantee various enumerated rights to lawful combatants, prisoners of war, and civilians, explicitly apply to all armed conflicts between contracting nations and not just to declared wars. Congress’s power to declare war continues to have important statutory ramifications, nonetheless. A particularly dramatic example is the Alien Enemy Act (1 Stat. 577 (1798), codified in 50 U.S.C. § 21 (2003)), which authorizes the President to detain and deport citizens of enemy nations, but only following either a declaration of war or an attack upon the United States.